Is conservatism finished as a political force?

I found this on Chas' Compilation:

No Conservatives Please

The Writing on the Wall in South Carolina - Thompson didn't fail the Republican Party. The Party that failed to present a conservative themselves, or support one even when conservatives drafted one, failed Thompson.

Shade tree political pundits, who worked around the clock to douse ice water on Fred Thompson’s conservative campaign for President, are busy with their “I told you so” follow-ups. For them, Thompson’s departure from the race is interpreted as hard proof that the candidate was indeed “too old,” “too unhealthy,” “too lazy” and “too disinterested” in winning or leading. But for those who know Fred best, those who drafted him and worked to support him, his departure confirms something quite different…something much worse.

Thompson is simply too Conservative

At a time in history when conservatives are referred to as only a “fringe” of the Republican Party, and when fundamental American values and principles are called “extreme right-wing ideas,” a truly conservative candidate can’t win.

The leftist smearing of classical liberalism (embodied in the Declaration and the Constitution) as "far right wing fringe" seems to have finally even gotten to ordinary non-socialist Americans.

When I lived in San Francisco, it used to drive me nuts when the politically correct Thought Police who were busy outlawing smoking on sidewalks, banning guns and mandating and enforcing acceptance of public promiscuity would tell me that they were "liberal."

I'm the most liberal person that I know. I really don't judge people unless their behavior is dangerous to others. I don't go around bossing and nagging others to toe the line. It's a free country and people can do as they please as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I could never stomach the gall of these Fascist, Brownshirt socialists in telling me that I was a right wing nut because I believed in the ideas of our Founders. Living in San Francisco was a lot like living in 1984 where language had ceased to have meaning because the left had removed all truth from it and perverted it to their Big Lie of socialism. Maybe it was more like a Kafka story - a maze of deceit and double meanings.

The irony is that I'm not really a conservative at all. I'm a traditionalist and believe that it's a waste of time to re-invent the wheel. Wisdom is not something that comes and goes like fashions. You can find wisdom in a Bible that was written thousands of years ago, or in Shakespeare who wrote nearly a half a millennium ago or in the Federalist Papers which were penned over two hundred years ago. Wisdom is the truth and truth doesn't change over time. It is always the same.

I guess that's why socialists hate wisdom and truth so much since their "philosophy" is based on a lie and their agenda is deceitful.

Definition of "conservative"

Glen Dean posted this yesterday: Conservatism Defined By Glen

I have always considered myself to be a conservative. As early as I can remember, I was interested in politics. I was ten years old when Ronald Reagan was elected in a landslide. During my teen years, I was probably the only kid in my school that had a subscription to National Review. I became a huge fan of William F. Buckley and my favorite show was Crossfire, which featured Patrick Buchanan.

So what is my definition of the word conservative?

My definition of the word conservative is almost synonymous with the classical definition of the word liberal. As much as a I criticize people today who call themselves liberal, I actually consider myself to be one. Not only that, but I consider modern liberals to really not be that liberal at all. By calling myself conservative or libertarian (more on that word later), I am simply giving in to the fact that over the last century, certain words have taken on different meanings.

I couldn't agree more. Reading Glen's essay, you see that he is a libertarian conservative (in fact he used to call his blog "Christian Libertarian") not a paleocon, neocon or theocon. Glen ended his essay by inviting some bloggers to give our definitions of "conservative" to which I responded: "Can I publish your post and pretend that it's mine? :)" Glen didn't give me permission to steal his essay so I guess I'll just have to write my own.

Like Glen, I believe that real conservatives are actually "classical liberals" like our Founders who were inspired by John Locke and Adam Smith but I also know that "conservatism" has other connotations nowadays some of which I don't agree with. I only use the word "conservative" to describe myself when I need to state my position quickly; as short-hand to let lefties know that I detest socialism and that I'm an old-fashioned flag-waving patriot and a gun-toting defender of the Second Amendment. But, other than that, I'm not really a true "conservative."

For as long as I have been aware of politics "conservative" (especially since Nixon) has meant "social conservative" more than Lockean small-government conservatism and Smithian free-market economics. I know plenty of "conservatives" who don't have any problem with big intrusive government and don't give a fig about free-market economics. Glen wrote, "In fact, many people who call themselves social conservatives share very little in common with me. I do not believe that government should enforce morality and pass laws that protect people from themselves." I agree with Glen but many "social conservatives" would disagree.

For instance "social conservatives" want a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. I understand their concern but don't like amending the Constitution in such a way that it tells people what they cannot do so I definitely cannot call myself a "social conservative." My main objection to gay marriage (and a lot of other modern self-indulgent nonsense) is because it is a break with tradition. Maybe I should call myself a "traditionalist" rather than a "conservative."

First and foremost I am a Republican in the tradition of Jefferson's and Madison's "Republican Party" as well as the modern "Republican Party" of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. None of these former presidents would pass muster with the current crop of "conservatives" who dominate the right-wing blogosphere. They despise Bush for being soft on illegal immigration and now talk of boycotting the 2008 election if Fred Thompson does not get the nomination because, in their minds, Giuliani, McCain and Romney are RINOS.

Over the past year I've stopped reading dozens of so-called conservative blogs not only because they are boring Bush-bashing echo-chambers, but because they are radical extremists and definitely not traditional Republicans. Many of these "social conservatives" were formerly Democrats until Reagan and they haven't got a clue about the history and culture of the GOP. Unfortunately, starting with Reagan, the GOP has pandered to them and has almost ruined the party just in order to win elections. Sure we have to win but not at the cost of real GOP traditions. As far as I am concerned, our three front-runners (and Fred Thompson) are all traditional Republicans and I'll gladly vote for whomever wins the nomination even if I don't agree with them on everything.

So I guess, by today's definition of "conservative," I am not one.

A riff on "redefining conservatism"

[A "riff" is a loose, free-form essay but it's not a "rant" which is also free-form but it's angry.]

I was listening to Rush in the car on the way into the office this morning. He was talking about how certain people (specifically McCain and Huckabee) are trying to "redefine conservatism." If you think of Rush as one of those who have defined modern conservatism over the past 20 odd years, then yes, he is entitled to accuse Mack and Huck of redefining it. But he is not the only definer of conservatism.

The definers of "conservatism" have written hundreds of books about it. My favorite is Barry Goldwater's 1960 The Conscience of a Conservative but I doubt many self-proclaimed conservatives nowadays would regard Goldwater a conservative. I have a hunch that some of those who voted for Huckabee would not even regard Reagan as a conservative if they simply considered his record without knowing who it referred to.

Fred Thompson made it very clear from the start of his campaign that he was a Goldwater conservative. He told how he had read The Conscience of a Conservative in college and how valuable that had been for him. Maybe that's why modern conservatives rejected Thompson in favor of Huckabee. The unintellectual populist Huckabites probably don't even know who Goldwater was and those who do know also know that Goldwater was a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

When I Googled The Conscience of a Conservative to confirm what year it was published, I found that Goldwater had given a speech at the 1960 GOP convention when party conservatives rebelled against Nixon, accusing him of being a liberal on too many issues. Goldwater told the GOP: “Let’s grow up, conservatives! If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work.” Of course he had to wait for 20 years before Reagan won.

I think he'd say the same thing today but, sadly, the small government/federalist "conservatism" that Goldwater was talking about is now out of fashion. Conservatism nowadays seems to be more about trying to turn back the clock to an imaginary Reagan Utopia.

I agree that McCain is not a conservative as defined by Rush Limbaugh. But McCain is no Goldwater either. He's an older kind of Republican - in the style of Eisenhower and Nixon. Neither is Huckabee a Goldwater conservative and yet more modern conservatives voted for Huckabee than for Thompson, the only Goldwaterite in the race. So were conservatives in the early primaries not listening to Rush when he said Huck was not a true conservative? Maybe.

Supposedly there are about 25 million Republicans and I've heard people say that half of them are conservatives because 12 to 13 million tune into Rush every day but maybe not all of them are Dittoheads. I listen occassionally but I'm not a big Rush fan. I also know liberals who listen to him in order to get their adrenaline rush. So maybe not all Republicans are true-blue Limbaughite conservatives.

I've known quite a lot of different kinds of Republicans - liberal, moderate, conservative and reactionary. I have no idea what the proportions are. All I know is that there are a lot of people who are Republicans because of what they do not want more than what they do want. They do not like the unpatriotic "blame America" Democratic Party or its racial identity politics or its class-warfare rhetoric or its sabotage of self-reliance and personal responsibility through wealth distribution and entitlements.

The thing that all Republicans have in common is a desire to conserve/preserve the traditional American way of life and resist the progressives' headlong rush into European-style statism/socialism. We can never turn the clock back. All we can do is slow it down slightly. So we are agreed on what we don't want but we're not in complete agreement about what we do want.

Some of us would like to see a nation united under Christian principles. Others prefer a secular society - not a free-for-all anarchy but a classical liberal republic as envisaged by the Founders. Some want to be isolationist and not get entangled in unholy alliances. Others believe in realpolitik. Some want to see government limited and curtailed as much as possible. Others, like the neocons, believe that we need a large, strong central government in keeping with our "national greatness." Some want to legislate morality. Others want to be left alone.

I can live with all these different factions within the GOP as long as we all agree on what we don't want: higher taxes, socialism, Big Brother, a politically correct but racially divided "multiculti" society, moral and cultural relativism and weakness in the face of threats from the barbarians at the gate.

Fred's blog quotes me

From Fred Thompson's blog, Fred08:

More Praise for Fred’s Tax Relief Plan
Posted on November 26th, 2007

Patrick Joubert Conlon at Born Again Redneck called the plan, “music to a businessman’s ears.”

Boy, am I tickled pink.

PS I'm going to leave this post at the top for a while because I have just applied to join two Fred Blogrolls and I want them to see what a good boy I am. Scroll down for newer posts.

PPS Thank you all for your kindness in sharing my pleasure. The fact is that blogging is a social endeavor and this silly little blog would not have even been noticed if it had not been for your linking to it and boosting its presence among the 20 million other blogs. Thank you.

My second favorite candidate for President: McCain

Everyone who reads my blog regularly knows that my favorite is Fred Thompson. In real life I may find him slightly overbearing and maybe even a bit egotistical but, when it comes to politics, I agree with him 99.8%. And I'm not one who should complain about ego since I've got plenty myself.

My second favorite is someone who is vilified on the right as a sell-out but I like him a lot and am hoping that maybe Fred picks him for Veep. If Fred drops out, this guy is my next pick: John McCain.

If anyone has sat on committees (as I have many a time - at work and as a volunteer in my private life) then they'll know what McCain is all about. Congress is basically a big committee. You wheel and deal, compromise and accommodate. It's hard to be a hero on a committee. Heroes are not appreciated. Team-players are.

McCain has walked the fine line between being a team-player and a hero most of his adult life. He's not a total team-player which is why he is called a "maverick." But he's sold out at times (as have I) for a greater goal rather than merely being righteous or even simply right. He's the consummate politician and that's nothing to sneeze at. He could be another Gerald Ford and that's not the worst thing in the world.

After that comes Romney who is not a team-player. He's all about being a corporate boss; playing Mr Nice Guy and smiling while cutting your salary or handing you a pink slip. He's okay but he's not mensch. He's a total two four-faced fake and phony but he's not incompetent or stupid and could probably handle the job quite well. Although it seems to be an issue for some silly folks, his religion doesn't phase me one bit. Who am I to criticize when I've been accused of being a Hindu?

Then comes Giuliani. He's a lose canon but he's not totally stupid. You already know what I think about Rudy. I probably shouldn't criticize him because of his marital history since I've gone through two wives, four "lady friends" (who were more than that euphemism implies) and three "special" male friends (two of whom - Chas and Andy - are still with me after 26 and 15 years respectively) so I'm in no position to cast stones but I've never treated my former mates as insouciantly as Rudy has. I'm sorry but this man stinks to high heaven in the loyalty department and his politics are untrustworthy but.....he's not as stupid as the rest of the field.

Next is the Huckleberry. I know that some people think he's a slick silver-tongued snake-oil-salesman Southern preacher, huckster and hustler but I think he's just basically a bit naive and silly. He's a decent fellow and I could easily make a friend of him - except for his lousy nanny-state politics. I'd have to smack him with a rolled up newspaper occasionally and tell him to grow up and get real. He's a nice guy but he's stupid - about three brain cells more than Edwards but not nearly as immoral and crooked.

As for the rest: Hunter's okay but is naive - the California version of Huckleberry; slightly more savvy than the Huckster but basically a nice but dumb beach boy. Unfortunately Tancredo is even more stupid that Hunter and Paul is the GOP's cretinous Kucinich. Nuff said.

But I'm quite happy about all of this because I know that, if Fred fails, I've got two spares to back him up - although, while I could quite comfortably campaign for McCain, I could not do so for Romney. He'd have to sink or swim on his own. Thank goodness Romney doesn't need my money. I'll volunteer time and money to McCain but not to Romney.

Maybe if I had all my eggs in one basket, I'd be freaking out round about now but I don't. One special favorite and two back up candidates suits me fine.

Saturday silliness - picking presidents astrologically

Blame this silly post on the wine that I had at dinner (which was barbecued bone-in New York strip steak, corn on the cob and fat sweet ripe beef-steak tomatoes.) I'm stuffed and tipsy.

I used to love astrology in my stoned hippie days but have since realized that it's nonsense. At least it's entertaining nonsense compared with Freud's boring uber-nonsensical BS. Astrological BS is a lot more amusing than "psycho-analytical" BS and they're equally unreliable in explaining human behavior.

Here are the Western and Eastern astrological signs of the Presidential candidates. I'm not going to bother with the Dems other than Hillary who's the only one who stands a chance of being elected. The others are whistling in the wind even of one of them wins the primary.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, October 26, 1947, Scorpio/Pig. When Scorpio/Pigs are good, they're saints but when they're bad they can be truly evil. If Hillary were honest, sincere and ethical, she'd make a great Prez - except for her socialism.

And here are the Repubs:

Rudolph Giuliani, May 28 1944, Gemini/Monkey. Gemini/Monkeys are usually very clever people but, if they lack ethics, they can also be totally insincere phonies and liars. Giuliani would be okay but I have my doubts about his ethics. He could handle the job well but I don't really trust his motives. He comes across as sincere and straightforward but it's an act. He's basically vain and superficial.

John McCain, August 29 1936, Virgo/Rat.
Virgo/Rats can be sensible, serious and practical if they aren't neurotic. If they are neurotic, they can be unstable and egotistical. McCain would be fine except he does seem a bit unstable. He may be able to do the job but he doesn't seem to have strong principles and could make some bad decisions based on political opportunism rather than sincere convictions.

Mitt Romney, March 12 1947, Pisces/Pig.
Pisces/Pigs have the potential to be the most chivalrous, kind and selfless people if they're sane but, if they aren't, they can be stupid and shallow. Romney has the same signs as Washington and has potential. I think he's sane but he's also a bit shallow. I have my doubts about his sincerity and he may just be an empty suit but he would be my second choice after Fred.

Fred Thompson, August 19 1942, Leo/Horse.
Leo/Horses are usually noble, reliable and trustworthy if they're not vain but, if they are, then they can be arrogant, insensitive and self-centered. Thompson's a bit vain but not too much. He's pretty sane, sensible and realistic. Leo/Horses are strong and self-reliant and expect everyone else to be as tough as they are. They don't tolerate weakness in others - just the kind of Prez to encourage us to stiffen our backbones.

And here are the Western and Eastern astrological signs of all the Presidents. I'm not going to explain them because anyone who's interested probably already knows what the signs mean. If you don't know but are inquisitive, just ask.

George Washington, February 22 1732, Pisces/Pig

John Adams, October 30 1735, Scorpio/Cat

Thomas Jefferson, April 13 1743, Aries/Pig

James Madison, March 16 1751, Pisces/Goat

James Monroe, April 28th 1758, Taurus/Tiger

John Quincy Adams, July 11 1767, Cancer/Pig

Andrew Jackson, March 15 1767, Pisces/Pig

Martin Van Buren, December 5 1782, Sagittarius/Tiger

William Henry Harrison, February 9 1773, Aquarius/Snake

John Tyler, March 29 1790, Aries/Dog

James K. Polk, November 2 1795, Scorpio/Cat

Zachary Taylor, November 24 1784, Sagittarius/Dog

Millard Fillmore, January 7 1800, Capricorn/Monkey

Franklin Pierce, November 23 1804, Sagittarius/Rat

James Buchanan, April 23 1791, Taurus/Pig

Abraham Lincoln, February 12 1809, Aquarius/Horse

Andrew Johnson, December 29 1808, Sagittarius/Snake

Ulysses S. Grant, April 27 1822, Taurus/Horse

Rutherford B. Hayes, October 4 1822, Libra/Horse

James A. Garfield, November 19 1831, Scorpio/Cat

Chester A. Arthur, October 5 1829, Libra/Ox

Grover Cleveland, March 18 1837, Pisces/Rooster

Benjamin Harrison, August 20 1833, Leo/Snake

William McKinley, January 29 1843, Aquarius/Cat

Theodore Roosevelt, October 27 1858, Libra/Horse

William Howard Taft, September 15 1857, Virgo/Snake

Woodrow Wilson, December 28 1856, Capricorn/Dragon

Warren G. Harding, November 2 1865, Scorpio/Ox

Calvin Coolidge, July 4 1872, Cancer/Monkey

Herbert Hoover, August 10 1874, Leo/Dog

Franklin D. Roosevelt, January 30 1882, Aquarius/Horse

Harry S Truman, May 8 1884, Taurus/Monkey

Dwight D. Eisenhower, October 14 1890, Libra/Ox

John Kennedy, May 29 1917, Gemini/Snake

Lyndon B. Johnson, August 27 1908, Virgo/Monkey

Richard M. Nixon, January 9 1913, Capricorn/Rat

Gerald R. Ford, July 14 1913, Cancer/Ox

Jimmy Carter, October 1 1924, Libra/Rat

Ronald Reagan, February 6 1911, Aquarius/Pig

George H. W. Bush, June 12 1924, Gemini/Rat

William J. Clinton, August 19 1946, Leo/Dog

George W. Bush, July 6 1946, Cancer/Dog

In Western astrology there have been:

2 Aries (Jefferson, Tyler)

4 Taurus (Monroe, Buchanan, Grant, Truman)

2 Gemini (Kennedy, Bush Sr)

4 Cancer (J.Q. Adams, Coolidge, Ford, Bush Jr)

3 Leo (B. Harrison, Hoover, Clinton)

2 Virgo (Taft, L.B. Johnson)

5 Libra (Hayes, Arthur, T. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Carter)

4 Scorpio (J. Adams, Polk, Garfield, Harding)

4 Sagittarius (Van Buren, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson)

3 Capricorn (Fillmore, Wilson, Nixon)

5 Aquarius (W.H. Harrison, Lincoln, McKinley, F.D. Roosevelt, Reagan)

4 Pisces (Washington, Madison, Jackson, Cleveland)

In Eastern astrology there have been:

4 Rat (Pierce, Nixon, Carter, Bush Sr)

4 Ox (Arthur, Harding, Eisenhower, Ford)

2 Tiger (Monroe, Van Buren)

4 Cat (J. Adams, Polk, Garfield, McKinley)

1 Dragon (Wilson)

5 Snake (W.H. Harrison, A. Johnson, B. Harrison, Taft, Kennedy)

5 Horse (Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, T.Roosevelt, F.D. Roosevelt)

1 Goat (Madison)

4 Monkey (Fillmore, Coolidge, Truman, L.B. Johnson)

1 Rooster (Cleveland)

5 Dog (Tyler, Taylor, Hoover, Clinton, Bush Jr)

6 Pig (Washington, Jefferson, J.Q. Adams, Jackson, Buchanan, Reagan)

Hurray for the Pigs! (Yes, I'm a Pig.)

Fred Thompson on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

The Dangers of Government Guarantees:

Fannie and Fred were “government sponsored enterprises” which means heads they win, tails you lose. If they make money stockholders, creditors and Fannie and Freddie employees – some making millions annually – get the benefit. But now that mortgages have hit the skids, with mounting losses, the taxpayers potentially face trillions in exposure. This is because there is an “implicit” (read “actual”) government guarantee of Fannie and Freddie’s obligations and both are now too big to be allowed to fail. This is called the “bailout phase,” which will probably lead to a bigger bubble in the future.

[...]

That is why we continue to see self-dealing, moral lapses, outright fraud and lack of management and oversight in a wide array of programs and government-sponsored entities, from housing to Medicare, education and the Small Business Administration, all costing taxpayers billions, even trillions of dollars.

Our Founding Fathers knew more than a little bit about human nature. It is one reason why in the Constitution, the federal government was given certain delineated powers and no others. I hate to burst another bubble, but our government simply doesn’t have the authority or the capability to be the guarantor or insurer of our every need or desire. Isn’t it time we started sending that message loud and clear to the big enablers in Washington?

I sure hope Mac has plans for Fred in his cabinet - as well as Phil Gramm.

The GOP: what's good for business is good for America

Yes, I'm a single-issue voter. I believe that the business of America is business. To me business means free enterprise, private property and individual sovereignty - the most important elements of the American Revolution. That's why I'm a Republican.

I've been reading the comments on this blog and posts and comments on other blogs for and against McCain.

First: (let's get this out of the way) McCain is not the nominee yet; I'm still betting on Romney.

Second: even if McCain is the nominee, there's no assurance that he will be elected President.

Third: even if he is elected, there's no telling exactly how things will go. Voting for a Republican is a crap-shoot just like business - and life in general. You pick your cards and roll the dice and hope for the best - but you've made the effort to remember which cards have already been dealt and you make an educated guess.

Voting for a Democrat is not a crap-shoot. You know for sure that you're going to get more commie crap. So my educated guesses have nearly always led me to vote for Republicans. Yes, deep down inside, I have ideals and wish for politicians who understood the wisdom of the Founders' limited government Constitution but we've strayed so far off course over the centuries that just a modicum of Americanism satisfies me nowadays.

Fred Thompson was a breath of fresh air but how much of his campaign was just an act? Almost too perfect? He is after all a friend of McCain and supposedly was only making an appearance in order to have a go at the Veep-stakes.

So, I picked Mitt Romney next. He has a good record as a businessman but an iffy record as a politician but I'm sticking with him until he quits.

As for whether I'll vote for McCain or not:

If he picks Huckabee (whom I loathe) as VP, it will be hard.

If he picks Thompson (whom I like a lot) as VP, it will be easier but, no matter who he picks for VP, it will never be more than voting for the lesser of two evils and never has been ever since I became an American citizen.

I just know that four years for a businessman is a long time. A lot can happen in four years that will affect my business for decades to come. Yes, I am ideological to a point but, when push comes to shove, I know that Republicans are better for business (private property and individual sovereignty) than Democrats.

A Democrat in the WH and a Democrat majority in Congress will:

Raise income taxes.

Raise capital gains taxes.

Raise corporate taxes.

Raise the minimum wage.

Cause interest rates to be raised to 13 or 14% as they were under Carter.

Appoint judges who have no respect for private property, self defense and individual liberty.

Introduce politically correct legislation that cripples a businessman's ability to decide what's best for his own business. (In Democrat-controlled San Francisco I had to rebuild stairs in my restaurant because the handrails were higher than 30 inches. When I asked why, I was told that was the height approved for wheelchairs. When I pointed out that wheelchairs don't use stairs and it was ridiculous, I was told that I would be not be issued a business license if I did not comply. That's just one example but I know all about Democratic politically correct nonsense first-hand.)

I could go on but you get the gist. Four years of politically correct government could mean that we will be four years closer to not only tolerating sharia but enthusiastically welcoming it in our schools and bureaucracies. Can you spell European-style dhimmitude anyone. Can you smile when you address Big Brother?

Yep, both Romney and McCain could go along with Democratic socialist crap like that but they may not. It's a crap-shoot voting for Republicans but not for Democrats. You just know for sure that Democrats will increase taxes, expand government and introduce more feel-good appeasement baloney. Billary and Obama will not only certainly go along with a Democratic Congress' socialistic nonsense but will actively encourage it.

So, why would I bet on something that I know will definitely be bad for business (and my private life) when I can bet on something that has a 50/50 chance of being good for business?

I will be voting Republican in November no matter who the nominee is. Ideology is for people with philosophical and religious agendas or people who do not have to do payroll taxes, pay health-care and workers' compensation insurance and generally foot the bill out of their own pockets.

Silent Cal

Lately I've been having to delete lots of older posts - 700 posts just for this year. I use up too much space on Blogger because I post so many pictures. I found this post in draft mode that I wrote 11/26/07 and which I somehow completely forgot about.

Earlier that month, in response to criticism of my then favorite candidate, Fred Thompson, I had said Thompson may not have been as "silent" as one of my favorite past Presidents, Calvin Coolidge, but that he was similarly laid-back and that, like Coolidge, he understood the spirit of the Founders' vision and put into words everything that I believed in.

It was said of Coolidge that "he embodied the spirit and hopes of the middle class, could interpret their longings and express their opinions. That he did represent the genius of the average is the most convincing proof of his strength."

Coolidge was not always "Silent Cal." He was full of enthusiasm and energy as VP and, when he became President after Harding died in 1923, he was so impressively able that he was nominated on the first ballot at the 1924 convention.

But soon after the convention, he was devastated by the death of his younger son, Calvin, Jr., who had developed a blister from playing tennis. The blister then became infected, and Calvin, Jr. died. After that Coolidge became withdrawn. He later said that "when he died, the power and glory of the Presidency went with him."

From Wikipedia:

In spite of his sadness, Coolidge ran his conventional campaign; he never maligned his opponents (or even mentioned them by name) and delivered speeches on his theory of government, including several that were broadcast over radio. It was easily the most subdued campaign since 1896, partly because the President was grieving for his son, but partly because Coolidge's style was naturally non-confrontational.

Probably the most famous Coolidge quote is from his address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington D.C., January 25, 1925:

"It is probable that a press which maintains an intimate touch with the business currents of the nation is likely to be more reliable than it would be if it were a stranger to these influences. After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world."

Leftists have interpreted that as meaning that Coolidge was a cold-hearted capitalist pig but:

During Coolidge's presidency the United States experienced the period of rapid economic growth known as the "Roaring Twenties." His economic policy has often been misquoted as "generally speaking, the business of the American people is business" (full quotation below.) Although some commentators have criticized Coolidge as a doctrinaire laissez-faire ideologue, historian Robert Sobel offers some context based on Coolidge's sense of federalism:

"As Governor of Massachusetts, Coolidge supported wages and hours legislation, opposed child labor, imposed economic controls during World War I, favored safety measures in factories, and even worker representation on corporate boards. Did he support these measures while president? No, because in the 1920s, such matters were considered the responsibilities of state and local governments."

[...]

Coolidge's taxation policy, and that of his Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, was that taxes should be lower and that fewer people should have to pay them. The Congress concurred, and the tax burden on Americans was reduced in Coolidge's term. In addition to these tax cuts, Coolidge proposed reductions in federal expenditures and retiring some of the federal debt. To that end, Coolidge declined to sign some of the spending that Congress approved. He vetoed the proposed McNary-Haugen Farm Relief Bill of 1926, designed to allow the federal government to purchase agricultural surpluses and sell them abroad at lowered prices. Coolidge declared that agriculture must stand "on an independent business basis," and said that "government control cannot be divorced from political control." He favored Herbert Hoover's proposal to modernize agriculture to create profits, instead of manipulating prices. When Congress re-passed the McNary-Haugen bill in 1927, Coolidge vetoed it again. "Farmers never have made much money," said Coolidge, the Vermont farmer's son, "I do not believe we can do much about it."

[...]

Coolidge has often been criticized for his actions during the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, the worst natural disaster to hit the Gulf Coast until Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Although he did eventually name Secretary Hoover to a commission in charge of flood relief, Coolidge's lack of interest in federal flood control has been much maligned. Coolidge did not believe that personally visiting the region after the floods would accomplish anything, but would be seen only as political grandstanding, and he did not want to incur the federal spending that flood control would require. Congress wanted a bill that would place the federal government completely in charge of flood mitigation; Coolidge wanted the property owners to bear much of the costs. When Congress passed a compromise measure in 1928, Coolidge declined to take credit for it and signed the bill in private on May 15.

While he was not an isolationist, Coolidge was reluctant to enter foreign alliances. Coolidge saw the landslide Republican victory of 1920 as a rejection of the Wilsonian idea that the United States should join the League of Nations. While not completely opposed to the idea, Coolidge believed the League, as then constituted, did not serve American interests, and he did not advocate membership in it.

[...]

Coolidge did not seek renomination; he announced his decision to reporters, in writing, with typical terseness: "I do not choose to run for President in 1928." After allowing them to take that in, Coolidge elaborated. "If I take another term, I will be in the White House till 1933 … Ten years in Washington is longer than any other man has had it—too long!" In his memoirs, Coolidge explained his decision not to run:

"The Presidential office takes a heavy toll of those who occupy it and those who are dear to them. While we should not refuse to spend and be spent in the service of our country, it is hazardous to attempt what we feel is beyond our strength to accomplish."

The Republicans retained the White House in 1928 in the person of Coolidge's Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover.

Coolidge had been lukewarm on the choice of Hoover as his successor; on one occasion he remarked that "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad."

Despite his reputation as a quiet and even reclusive politician, Coolidge made use of the new medium of radio and made radio history several times while President. He made himself available to reporters, giving 529 press conferences, meeting with reporters more regularly than any President before or since. His inauguration was the first presidential inauguration broadcast on radio. On 6 December 1923, Coolidge was the first President whose address to Congress was broadcast on radio. On 12 February 1924, he became the first President of the United States to deliver a political speech on radio. On 11 August 1924, Coolidge was filmed on the White House lawn by Lee De Forest in DeForest's Phonofilm sound-on-film process, becoming the first President to appear in a sound film. The title of the DeForest film was President Coolidge, Taken on the White House Lawn.

It's no wonder that Reagan revered Silent Cal, a true American who understood America perfectly. He was the only President to be born on the Fourth of July.

Getting politics in proportion: lemonade out of lemons

Fred Thompson's run for the Presidency got me fired up in a way that hasn't happened since I turned 18 and could vote and campaign for my local anti-apartheid Member of Parliament in South Africa. My failure to help get rid of apartheid made me politically pessimistic and, for many years after that, I was apolitical.

When I went to live in the UK, British politics almost turned me into a skeptic. It seemed that the choice was between the hardcore working-class socialism of the Labor Party and the noblesse oblige socialism-lite of the Tories. When I arrived in the USA, Carter was in the WH and I almost despaired and became cynical.

Then Reagan arrived on the scene. I was not yet a US citizen and could not vote for him but he talked my kind of language and he gave me hope again. When I became a citizen, I was excited to register as a Republican but my enthusiasm was soon dashed by Bush Sr and I could not bring myself to vote for his second term. I was hoodwinked by Bill Clinton's fake cheerfulness and voted for him.

Please don't hold that against me. I was naive. It didn't take me long to realize that I had made a terrible mistake. Bush Sr was uninspiring but at least he didn't shag the employees in the WH and he was a decent man not a mentally twisted malignant narcissist and liar like Clinton. By the time that Clinton's second term was over, I had realized that ANY Republican was better than ANY Democrat.

However I could not bring myself to vote for Bush Jr in 2000 and I sat out the election. Thank goodness my one non-vote didn't count and Bush won. Needless to say, I voted for him enthusiastically in 2004 and, while I haven't liked many of his ideas, I have come to not expect too much from a President.

That was until Fred came along and turned me into a starry-eyed idealist again. But it was too good to be true and, well, it's back down to earth and getting politics in proportion once again; not expecting much from politicians (especially Presidents) and remembering that ANY Republican is better than ANY Democrat.

There is very little difference between the political philosophies of Romney, McCain and Huckabee. They are all moderates. They are all statists who believe that government is the solution not the problem. So my choice is based mostly on character.

Romney seems to me to be a decent man, a gentleman, a loyal husband and a loving father. I will gladly campaign for Romney. I despise Huckabee. He is a liar, crook and weasel. Huckabee can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Fortunately he is finished except as McCain's ally in stealing votes from Romney. McCain is a vain and conceited man and I will not campaign for McCain but, if he is the nominee, I will vote for him. However he will not be the nominee because I don't think Americans are ready for another Nixon.

The main thing for me is keeping government in gridlock. That way it can do the least harm. The less government can function the better. Our Founders knew this and wrote a pretty convoluted Constitution designed to stymie vain and conceited politicians and their ambitious projects.

I will therefore always vote for the opposition and the opposition will probably always be the GOP considering that there are more Democrats and that the USA, sadly, is moving leftward. The GOP and its politicians may not be perfect but at least they aren't total commies. Just think of what kinds of people call themselves Democrats - yep, MoveOn, Soros, Cindy Sheehan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich. Oh, you get the picture.

My vote will go to whomever opposes these maggots munching on the corpse of the civilization that they have killed.

I'm not complaining by any means. I live a very blessed life and have just had a delicious dinner: sock-eye salmon from Alaska, asparagus from Chile with vermicelli and a pesto sauce from Italy all washed down with a delicious Oregon chardonnay.

And, thanks to another cut in the Fed's interest rate, I've negotiated a sweet mortgage of 6% fixed for the motel that I am going to buy.

As long as there's a anti-MoveOn Republican in the WH, and God's in His Heaven then all's well on earth - even if most of the trees are lemons. I've made so much lemonade out of lemons in life that I could make a fortune selling it at 50 cents a glass.

Are you a Republican or what?

Look, I'm not here to make people toe the party line. I'm a true liberal (not the fake kind who are really socialists) and I'm easy-going and just not into manipulating other people. But....

Whether you like it or not, McCain is our flag-bearer. He was not my first choice. Fred Thompson was (and I'll be the first to admit that Fred the actor had me fooled from the get-go.)

So, the majority of Republicans picked Mac and the way I see it is, if you don't accept that, then you're a sore loser and a spoilt brat.

If you genuinely can't support him; that's fine with me but then leave the GOP. Go support Barr or the Constitution Party nominee. Either you are on the team or you're not. Criticize Mac all you want but don't call yourself a Republican because you are sabotaging our team.

If you genuinely don't like him, that's fine. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. But, get real, you have to accept him just the way he is. He is what he is and he's not going to change or adapt to your expectations the way Obama does.

Obama will throw his grandmother under the bus if she stood in the way of his narcissistic ambitions - and he did. McCain may not be an unblemished saint but he is at least true to his convictions and constrained by common human decency.

I completely understand conservatives' objections to McCain and can sympathize to an extent but I'm a realist and know that Mac is the lesser of two evils - as is the GOP - compared with the alternative.

It's only politics not the Final Judgement. Whatever happens is temporary. It's not the end of the world as some of Mac's most fanatical "Rapturist" and "Millennialist" and "Theocratic" conservative enemies seem to think - or even wish.

Human beings muddle through and the compromises and accommodations inherent in democracy are particularly messy and unsatisfying. Adults make the best of bad situations and get on with life.

It's time for those who do not like McCain to get out if the GOP. We (and he) can defeat the idiotic Obamessiah and his imbecilic pot-head peacenik Obamaniacs with a coalition of pragamatic Republicans and conservative Democrats and independents - the middle class "Silent Majority. "

Fred Thompson on Palin

From the Weekly Standard:

"I am absolutely delighted by this selection. Once again, John McCain has shown that he is an independent thinker who paints in bold strokes. Sarah Palin is a conservative reformer with executive experience who will bring a breath of fresh air to Washington. She will be an ideal running mate for John McCain, and will make a major contribution to our country's future."

Now let's hope Mac puts Fred on SCOTUS.

Videos I've watched lately

[The blockquotes are Netflix's descriptions of the movies.]

Shrek the Third (2007)

I enjoyed the first two Shreks so I got the third. It too was most enjoyable.

I give it three stars.

Evan Almighty (2006)

In director Tom Shadyac's raucous follow-up to the 2003 comedy Bruce Almighty (also helmed by Shadyac), God (Morgan Freeman) summons narcissistic newscaster turned congressman Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) to build an enormous ark in preparation for a devastating flood. Unfortunately, Evan's perplexed family interprets his latest hobby as a midlife crisis gone wrong rather than as a divine assignment from the man upstairs.

I didn't like Bruce Almighty all that much but this one was recommended by Libertas - a forum for conservative thought on film and I'm glad I got it. It was a real treat.

I give it three stars.

Miss Potter (2006)

Blending lush animation sequences with live-action drama, director Chris Noonan constructs this biopic about the personal life of beloved children's author and illustrator Beatrix Potter. Featuring the Academy Award-winning Renee Zellweger as the title character and co-starring Emily Watson and Ewan McGregor, the film traces Potter's private life as well as her contributions to literature such as the timeless "Tale of Peter Rabbit."

Apart from the animation sequences, this is a pretty accurate and realistic bio of Beatrix Potter. If you didn't read her books as a kid, it may not mean much to you. But I grew up reading Potter's stories and it was wonderful to finally find out about the woman who created Peter Rabbit, Jemima Puddleduck and all the other whimsical farm and woodland creatures she brought to life in her delightfully illustrated books.

Potter's life was as magical as that of her creatures and she almost single-handedly saved the Lake District of England from over-development by buying up hundreds of farms and preserving them as working farms.

I lived in the Lake District with my first wife where, in 1972, we were married in the Kendall Parish Church where Henry VIII married Katherine Parr, his sixth and last wife, in 1543. We lived a few doors down from the church in a 14th century building that had had once been an inn.

I give this movie four stars.

Red Road (2006)

Far removed from the world, Jackie (Kate Dickie) uses her job as a security surveillance monitor to zoom in on her little corner of Glasgow, Scotland, through cameras placed throughout the city. One day, she sees the familiar face of Clyde (Tony Curran), a man whom she never imagined she would see again -- and who figures prominently into a dark episode in Jackie's past.

I got this movie because it was filmed in Glasgow where I once lived. It's one of those British "fake mysteries" where the only mystery is because the writer withholds information to keep you guessing and, when you do get it, it makes you annoyed that he toyed with your intelligence.

I give it one star for socio-anthropological accuracy.

Stardust (2007)

A young man journeys to a magical world to win the heart of his true love in this charming fantasy based on Neil Gaiman's novel. Tristan (Charlie Cox) has promised Victoria (Sienna Miller) that he'll retrieve a fallen star to secure her love. Along the way, he battles a pirate named Captain Shakespeare (Robert De Niro), an evil witch (Michelle Pfeiffer) and other assorted goblins and ghosts. Peter O'Toole, Claire Danes and Rupert Everett co-star.

I didn't expect much more than a few hours of fantasy from this but it turned out to be excellent - and quite funny too.

I give it three stars.

It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

I bought the video so that I could be sure to have it for my Christmas guests from South Africa who had never seen it before. They were glued to the TV while we cooked Christmas dinner.

Obviously I give it five stars.

The Bishop's Wife (1947)

This Christmastime angelic intervention sparkles with good humor. Dudley the angel (Cary Grant) is sent to help a bishop (David Niven) and his wife (Loretta Young) survive their attempt to finance a new cathedral and the strain it's putting on their marriage. The Bishop's Wife includes complex undercurrents, especially when the bishop sees Dudley as a rival for his job and his wife.

I also got this one especially for my guests who had never seen it before. Yep, they were glued to the TV.

I give it four stars.

A Christmas Story (1983)

Humorist Jean Shepard's nostalgic view of Christmastime in Indiana during the 1940s is a holiday classic. Nine-year-old Ralphie desperately wants a Red Ryder BB Gun for Christmas and wages an all-out campaign to convince his reluctant parents (Darren McGavin and Melinda Dillon) that the toy is safe. Meanwhile, as Ralphie prepares for the big day, his brother has a strange relationship with food, and his dad fights the never-ending furnace battle.

I also got this one for my Christmas guests but it arrived too late - after they'd left. I had never seen it but it was recommended by Libertas.

I give it three stars.

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)

Deck the halls with boughs of laughter -- the Griswolds are back! Clark (Chevy Chase), Ellen (Beverly D'Angelo) and the kids (Juliette Lewis and Johnny Galecki) gear up for the holidays in this installment of the "Vacation" series. As per usual, all the good intentions in the world can't save the family from disaster...or Cousin Eddie (Randy Quaid, who practically steals the show).

This one also arrived too late for Christmas. It was also recommended by Libertas (which surprised me) and was quite funny.

I give it two stars.

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

I had seen this when it first came out but I got it to show my guests who our next President (Fred Thompson) will be. It arrived too late but it was worth seeing again. Fred only appears for about ten minutes but the story is great.

I give it three stars.

Spartan (2004)

U.S. government secret agent Scott (Val Kilmer) likes doing things his own way. And that's a good thing, because when he's assigned the task of rescuing the kidnapped daughter (Kristen Bell) of the president, he discovers a larger, more insidious plot that originates within the White House itself -- and it's up to him to get to the bottom of it. William H. Macy co-stars in this twisty thriller written and directed by David Mamet.

I got this because it's a Mamet movie. Apart from the fact that Kilmer looks too soft and decadent to play a Marine secret agent, it was a good story.

I give it two stars.

8MM (1999)

Director Joel Schumacher's mysterious thriller pulls no punches. When a widow hires private eye Tom Welles (Nicolas Cage) to determine whether a snuff film in her late husband's possession was faked or real, Welles descends into an abyss of evil that he can't shake. With porn-bookstore clerk Max California (Joaquin Phoenix) as his guide, Welles is drawn deeper into this malevolent world, and what he finds could cost him his sanity and his soul.

Prof at Right Wing Nation recommended this. I had read about it and decided against it because of the horrible subject matter. I commented on Prof's blog that I'd get it since he had enjoyed it. He emailed me and said: "I wouldn't have picked you for someone who would enjoy that kind of movie."

I replied:

Just finished watching it. I got it because I figured, if you liked it, there must be more to it than "just" a thriller. There was. It was brilliant.

When I first saw it advertised on Netflix, I decided against it because it's about a snuff movie and, you're right, I usually don't like "that kind of movie" - too dark and heavy for my tastes. But I enjoy a good thriller occasionally - especially if the good guy kills all the bad guys by the end which I guessed would happen since it's a Cage movie.

Because it's a Cage movie, I was expecting simple entertainment not art. What I didn't figure for was the stylishness, the mood of darkness sustained by making strangely familiar backdrops look eerily bleak, the clever soundtrack of melancholy Indian music and mostly - Cage's performance. He was perfectly cast. His usual boring woodenness is exactly what was needed for the character.

The story was also believable - enough to move me and I was in tears at the end.

I give it three stars.

Emma (1996)

The other night I was feeling too sleepy to watch a video so we turned on the TV to see if there was something short to watch. This movie had just started on PBS which is the channel the TV is most often tuned to. I thought, "I'll watch a bit of this because I'll probably nod off anyway." I did nod off for a while and, when I woke up, I noticed that Chas and Andy were glued to the TV so I had another sip of wine to refresh me and was very glad that I did. It is one of the best films of Jane Austen's novel ever. I don't like Gwyneth Paltrow much but she was really good as Emma Woodhouse.

It's based on Jane Austen's comic novel, "Emma," which was first published in 1816. It's the story of a young woman, Emma, who is the only one of Austen's heroines who is rich and, as a result, is not being pressured by her family to marry a wealthy man so she plays the role of her town's "matchmaker." She's not at all interested in marriage but has a male friend whom she treats as a brother. She does not realizes that she loves him in a more than brotherly fashion until she hears one day that he is engaged to another woman.

The delicacy and tact with with they approach each other when they first realize that their mutual attraction is not simply platonic is one of the finest examples of Austen's understanding of sexual love as a baring of one's soul to another, standing naked before each other spiritually more than physically. They realize, as few people nowadays seem to, that they are becoming emotionally vulnerable to each other and have it within their power to hurt each other badly if they misunderstand each others' intentions.

So, they tread carefully, slowly testing each other to see just how much they can trust being open and defenseless before each other. And, when they finally declare their love for each other, it is like watching Adam and Eve making love in the garden of Eden, as marriage (the merging of two souls) should be; innocent, pure and childlike.

Austen understands how powerful and dangerous sex is and that sexual relations have serious consequences. Kids nowadays think that the only dangers of sex are pregnancy and STDs. They are not taught of sex's dangers to the psyche; how it can damage your character if it is engaged in as mere animals instead of the beings with immortal souls that we are. Jane Austen's six novels should be mandatory reading for all teenage girls - and boys.

I give this movie five stars.

Medium (TV show)

Tonight we watched the first episode of the new season of Medium, which is the only network TV show that we watch anymore. I wondered how they got around the writers' strike so I Googled it and found out that NBC ordered six scripts in advance last April in anticipation of the writers' strike.

I'm skeptical about psychics and that sort of stuff but this show is never boring. The executive producer, creator and director Glenn Gordon Caron did Moonlighting. Medium was inspired by the real-life story of research medium Allison DuBois, played by Patricia Arquette. Kelsey Grammer is the executive producer. No writers are credited but whoever they are, they sure know how to write good stories.

I give this show four stars.

A winning strategy for the GOP: "don't tread on me"

I keep reading conservative Christian bloggers saying that the GOP should not compromise; that the base of the GOP is solidly socially conservative. That's probably true but so what?

All that means is that an uncompromising solidly socially conservative GOP will get the votes of the 20 million people who listen to Limbaugh. It sure doesn't mean that we'll ever win another election. But, for these all or nothing types, I guess it's okay to just sit on our sanctimonious butts, feel righteous and preach and pontificate.

Nonsense. There is a way for the GOP to win elections. Goldwater, Reagan and Fred Thompson all said that they had "libertarian tendencies." The GOP can become relevant again if we simply emphasize and sincerely stand for individual liberty.

Think about it. What does a "don't tread on me" libertarian have in common with a "don't tread on me" Christian conservative. Yep: the "don't tread on me" bit. Libertarians and social conservatives agree that government is a necessary evil - not a good as "social democrats" believe.

For instance: libertarians and social conservatives agree that education vouchers would be better than having our kids being brainwashed by unionized commie teachers. Libertarians and social conservatives agree that giving the government more money via taxes is not as sensible as letting people use their own money wisely to benefit their own families.

I could go on but libertarians and social conservatives agree on so many issues that I won't even bother to list them. And - guess what? Most normal Americans are "don't tread on me" people. All we need is a few politicians and pundits with enough guts to spell it out and we'll have a wining strategy.

It's time for Republicans to unite around what we do agree on and stop fighting with each other about what we don't agree on.

PS I'll probably harp on this but there's really no need to do so because it's inevitable. The GOP may go through all sorts of contortions in the coming years and decades but, in the end, the only true opposition to the "social democrats'" elevation of government over God, is "don't tread on me" libertarianism. When (not if) that happens, I'll change the name of this blog to "I told you so." Mark my words.

The JournoList

Of the 107 "journalists" I've read and sometimes even quoted these:

Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic

Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

Ezra Klein - Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect

Ben Smith - POLITICO

Avi Zenilman – POLITICO

Ben Adler – Newsweek, POLITICO

Mike Allen - POLITICO

Jonathan Chait – The New Republic

Kevin Drum – Washington Monthly

Paul Krugman – The New York Times, Princeton University

Matthew Yglesias – Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly

Yes, I know they're well-known Lefties but I was under the impression that some of them were at least halfway sane. Note the four Politico "journalists." I knew something stank at Politico when they started smearing Fred Thompson in the '08 campaign. I'm not surprised to see Nobel Prize winner "economist" Paul Krugman listed. Needless to say I will never quote them again - or even bother to read them. They've cooked their geese.

The Veepstakes ll

Partial list of speakers at the Republican National Convention:

MONDAY, SEPT. 1

U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Conn.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California

Vice President Dick Cheney

First Lady Laura Bush

President Bush

TUESDAY, SEPT. 2

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge

Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska

Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah

Rosario Marin, California Secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency and former U.S. treasurer

Former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee

Gov. Linda Lingle of Hawaii

Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele

WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 3

Minnesota U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman

Meg Whitman, national co-chair for McCain 2008 and former president and CEO of eBay

Carly Fiorina, chairwoman for the Republican National Committee and former chairwoman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

Cindy McCain

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal

Republican vice-presidential nominee

THURSDAY, SEPT. 4

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist

U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas

U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida

John McCain

Hmmm! That makes me think that none of those who have been scheduled to speak are being considered for VP. Does that mean that another name that has been floated has a chance?

Robert Portman:

Robert Jones "Rob" Portman (born December 19, 1955) is an American lawyer and politician who has served in two cabinet positions and as a member of Congress. Most recently, he was Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to this appointment, Portman was the United States Trade Representative, a post carrying the rank of Ambassador. From 1993 to 2005, he was a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Ohio, representing that state's 2nd congressional district, which stretches along the Ohio River from the Hamilton County suburbs of Cincinnati.

He was confirmed by the Senate as U.S. Trade Representative on April 29, 2005, and privately sworn into his new office that day. Later, a public, ceremonial swearing-in was performed by then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card on May 17, 2005, with his friend President Bush in attendance. On April 18, 2006 President Bush nominated him to fill the role of Budget Director; its former director, Joshua B. Bolten, was promoted to White House Chief of Staff. Portman is reported to be a potential candidate for vice president on John McCain's 2008 GOP presidential ticket.

Portman on the Issues.

Middle America: moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats

Lemuel over at Hillbilly White Trash writes:

What I am seeing is that the McCain supporters are crowing about how they are finally going to be able to purge the conservatives out of the Republican party.

Jason Lewis mentioned this when he was subbing for Rush on Friday; that there is a coup going on in the Republican Party where the "moderate" wing of the Republican Party (moderates are liberals who are ashamed to call themselves liberals) is working with the actual Republican liberals to take back the party from the Reaganites.

Rush has hit on this point as well when he talks about how what he calls the "country club blue blood wing" of the party (also called "chamber of commerce Republicans") has always felt embarrassed by the genuine conservatives and sees McCain as their opportunity to get rid of them once and for all.

That the Republican Party cannot win national elections without its conservative base is of no concern to these people. They were quite happy in the pre-Reagan era when Republicans controlled 140-170 House seats (out of a 435 total).

Maybe - but I see it somewhat differently. The GOP has been the "Chamber of Commerce" party for a long time. Reagan was an anomaly and he was hated by the GOP establishment. Just look at the Republican Presidents in my lifetime: Eisenhower at one time was courted by the Democratic Party and considered the offer; Nixon was definitely not a conservative; Ford even less so and the Bushes are by no means Reaganites.

The GOP only caved in and let Reagan have the nomination because they saw that they didn't have the numbers to win without the Southern conservative Democrats who had voted for Goldwater in 1964. And, yes, the GOP cannot win elections without them - not since the 1960's Civil Rights era when blacks started voting Democrat. The Democrats have the numbers on their side so, to win, the GOP must court conservative Democrats and independent swing voters.

Most of the formerly Democratic Southern religious conservatives have become Republicans but not all of the Northeastern (mostly Catholic) conservative Democrats have. They helped elect Bush Jr but are still swing voters especially at the local level. They are not yet reliable Republicans. We need them to win also. We also need the conservative Democrats in the West - people like my rural neighbors in this county where 70% of the voters are registered Democrats but who voted for Bush Jr both times.

It's an uneasy alliance but not less uneasy than the Democratic coalition where the different groups often loathe each other. Blacks hate gays and hispanics who, in turn, hate blacks and gays and the gays hate everybody.

Anyway, to get back to the moderate Republican "coup." To me it's more like there was a conservative "coup" after Reagan and conservatives dominated the GOP in the 80s and 90s but are now having to take a seat around the sides of the table while the Chamber of Commerce types take the seat at the head of the table once again.

No conservative came to the front in this election unless you count Fred Thompson (and he may have been play-acting.) Tancredo and Hunter failed to get sufficient support. McCain, Romney and Huckabee are all moderates. There is very little policy difference between them. They are all in the middle of the left to right spectrum and, in the end, I made my choice by whom I liked more and whose character seemed better. Romney seems like a gentleman to me. McCain is not a nice man and Huckabee may appear to be a nice man but is actually a nasty devious piece of work.

Us Fredheads were called "far right extremists" by quite a few fellow Republican bloggers and I will admit that I can be a bit of an absolutist when it comes to sticking to Constitutional guidelines and my detestation of communism, socialism, collectivism and statism but I'm pretty comfortable with moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats which is what my much less political neighbors are - and I think most middle-class Americans are.

I just hope that us ordinary Americans pick the right moderate Republican for president. McCain is just as aggressive, confrontational and divisive as the Clintons. I would prefer to have a cool, calm and collected gentleman like Romney in the WH.

Now, I must go about being a good "Chamber of Commerce Republican." Yesterday I got all the financial data from the seller of the motel and have to spend today crunching numbers to see if it makes sense to buy it. It's a really nice property with a second lot of land behind it which is also zoned commercial and on which I intend to build in the future.

Blogrolls

HEADLESS THOMPSON GUNNER BLOGROLL










---


JOIN THE THOMPSON GUNNERS TODAY!!!!!

in the
Hillbilly Ecosystem

Run, Fred, Run! Blogroll

Terrorists for Liberals Blogroll

Wictory Wednesday Blogroll

Join Fair Tax Fans

The Alliance

Glenn Reynolds Says:

"If I had to chose between having Born Again Redneck as a neighbor or a vegetarian hippie peacenik, I'd pick the gun-totin' Redneck anyday even if he is a bit queer."

Rudy cancelled - Fred and Joe will speak instead

New speakers scheduled for convention tonight:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had been scheduled to give the keynote address. But Thompson and Lieberman will take the podium instead. Republicans say the two will talk about McCain's biography and their friendship with him.